- This topic has 195 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by .
-
Posts
-
@YYA – I said “it would be just another case of Mamzerus in the Rabbanut’s records”. That says exactly what I think of the ruling in the Langer case (I would need to read the entire transcript of the case to get a full picture of the situation and understanding of the Halachos at play like i would with any other Halachik subject I read (I don’t take what Rabbonim say at face value, I want to see the sources for myself)) and what I think of the other case as well. I thought it would be obvious.
@Yankel – I’ve said what I had to say on the subject and I stand by it. I never said those Rabbonim had no integrity or yiras shamayim. What I said is that no one immune from biases, not even highly esteemed Rabbonim. There’s a reason why recusion exists, as does the term “conflict of interests”. It is also a known fact that Charedi newspapers serve as outlets for the Rabbonim, so it only stands to reason that the opinions expressed are those of said Rabbonim, only in a more vitriolic format. The Rabbonim could certainly have told the outlets to turn the level of vitriol down and to be respectful in their criticism – which they did not. Only HKB”H Himself can be described as unbiased, and even that is an insult to Him – as if such a thing could even be possible! (Definitely not!) That aside, the RZ community rejected the Kol Korei as did other communities. There really isn’t more to be said about it unless you would like to have a Halachik discussion about the application of Rabbinic authority post-Churban Bayis Sheni and the sealing of the Talmud (and by extension the complete freezing of Halacha) – and with the total exclusion of the subject of “Daas Torah” in its modern iteration.ZSK> The Rabbonim could certainly have told the outlets to turn the level of vitriol down and to be respectful in their criticism – which they did not.
more likely, that outlets were not listening to the rabbonim, and maybe rabbonim knew their limits already. There are lots of cases where rabbinical opinions show up late: turns out R Landau is against demonstrations. A year after covid after so many talmidim infected their revered teachers, we found out that R Zilberstein was sitting alone in his room all this time and then came to give a lecture behind a giant plastic fence. What stopped charedi press from posting pictures of the Rav daily before other rabbonim were niftar?
ZSK> I never said those Rabbonim had no integrity or yiras shamayim. What I said is that no one immune from biases, not even highly esteemed Rabbonim.
and this is a good example how information flows … imagine that ZSK is a well-known talmid chochom (and maybe he is) and a gadol will ask his close student Yankel about ZSK, ending with ZSK put in cherem. So, Yankel will tell his teacher what he said here. Would it be gadol’s fault that he listened to Yankel?
yankel> those rabbanims integrity and yirat shamayim totally precludes that from being the case
It may be so. I looked closely at the case of cherem of making a gadol and it seems clear that the author has great esteem of the gadol who banned the book and still describes his reliance on information from people around him. Consider this as they call in math “a proof of existence” for rabbanim making bad decisions based on bad facts. The usual explanation is that talmidei chachamim are perfect halachik machines – but they depend on the reliability of inputs, so GIGO applies. Chassidiche rebbes might overcome this and have direct access to ruach hakodesh, so if the signers were not just Litivishe, their signatures are reliable regardless of bad information they might have relied upon.
More generally, and without taking a position here, people who try to be pro-active and resolve new issues, put themselves at risk of both mistakes and accusations. Applies to many in history, both who are now roundly condemned and those who are eventually vindicated, see Rambam, Moses Mendelsohn, for example.
ZSK – WRT Rabbi Goren’s contradictory ‘psakim’. Occam’s Razor makes more sense than hiding behind “I would need to read the entire transcript” with no intention to actually do so. Something that the Rabbonim who opposed him already did, I did (the Langer case), and you also could easily do if you wanted.
Occam razor is sharp, don’t cut yourself!
In this case, Occam razor actually says that a group of rabbis does not like another group because they do not like their derech, regardless of gadlus or lack thereof.I most strenuously condemn your summary
you attribute to me that zionism is ‘holy’
you could not have been more wrong
I never said that , nor did I even insinuate that.
.
.you seem to waffle between the rabbanim being against goren or the newspapers being against him
you seem to miss something extremely basic here
the august rabbanim — those who signed on to this public psak delegitimising goren
do not have to recuse themselves because of some supposed ‘conflict of interest’
for the simple reason that there is no personal interest at all besides kvod shamayim
this is obvious to any person who is close enough to observe them on a long term basis
in your world this seems not to exist
therefore – in your world everything is personal interest
and therefore — in your world — rabbanim do follow the newspapers …. they are … followers
those rabbanim who signed — by virtue of their non personal interest,, are not followers …
they are … leaders … true leaders
thats why the public follows them
in your world the rabanim seem not to be leaders … but followers ….
which is why the public uses them … but does not follow them
—-
how many participants were there at the funerals of the signatories of this psak ???
conversely – how many participants were there at the funeral of goren ???
did his public use goren ???
or did they follow goren ???
—
re bias
Chazon ish writes in emuna uvitachon [if not mistaken] based on shulchan aruch that a rav can decide even his own meat whether it is kasher or not
and is not pasul because of personal interest
he decries the convenient excuse for not following rabanim whenever they go against the layman’s opinion
that the rav decided the way he decided , because of personal interest …
—
I personally knew some of the signatories of the psak re goren
and know many people who knew the others personally
I can assure anyone
this has nothing to do with supposed zionist leanings of goren
or any political affiliations
and for sure not as a result of any newspaper articles
this is a pure halachik issue pertaining to the specific personality of goren himself
and it was on those halachik grounds that this psak was issued
I do not know of any rabbinic figure who merited such a public psak by such a variety of klal yisrael’s greatest
and the problem lies with goren personally as opposed to the signatories
any straight thinking honest person would agree with me
.
.HaLevi,
I’m sorry, I am not going to discuss or educate you on the difference between Halacha, that is found in the Shulchan Aruch, Tur, Rambam etc versus an Agadata. The mere suggestion that you want to compare Krias Shema and לא תאכלו על הדם to the 3 oaths, which is not discussed in any Halacha seder, is a faulty understanding of the Torah.
It reminds me of ancient Jews who instead of following halacha, started following the cool medrashim. They ended up on a cross.
AAQ and ZSK – Davka the Rabbonim who signed against Goren, especially Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Elyashiv, were known to respect and have a close relationship with several prominent RZ Rabbonim. They opposed Goren because of actual things he did. There were also those within the RZ orbit who saw Goren as a ‘loose cannon’ who damaged their cause.
AAQ – If those Rabbonim would relate to ALL RZ Rabbonim as they did to Goren, then Occam’s Razor might be relevant. The reality doesn’t bear that out. On the other hand, the Razor would apply neatly to one person issuing two completely contradictory ‘psakim’, where the only צד השווה is his desire to pander to the Zionist powers that be, something he never bothered to hide or was even ashamed of.
anon1m0us said – It reminds me of ancient Jews who instead of following halacha, started following the cool medrashim. They ended up on a cross.
Don’t know who or what you are talking about. The Three Oaths are a Gemara towards the end of Kesubos, not a Midrash. (They are also mentioned in the Midrash Shir Hashirim, but that is not the SOURCE of this subject.) There are quite a few Rishonim and Achronim who considered them to be binding. Hilchos Lashon Hara, among others, are not discussed in most of the major Halacha seforim of the Rishonim, except very briefly in the Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah. Other than a few lines in Masches Arachin, and scattered מאמרי חז״ל elsewhere, most of the references to all forms of Issurei Dibbur are – Aggadita. Yet we know that Lashon Hara is is a very big deal because – it says so in the Aggadita… So the Chofetz Chaim went and collected all of the scattered Halachic references and made them into a systematic Sefer called Chofetz Chaim, and the Aggadita he called Shmiras Halashon. No one even tried to claim that he made up something יש מאין just because there was no such thing as a Sefer or even a Perek within a Sefer on הלכות לשון הרע until he came along. Aside from the Divrei Yoel, many other Poskim held the Oaths to be very serious and very real, including Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Chaim Brisker and his son Rav Velvel, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Eliyahu Henkin, and many more. Some of the early RZ Rabbonim discussed the issue in their works and tried to build a case to permit Zionism anyway, including Rav Kalisher and Rav Reines, but they didn’t write it off as “faulty understanding of the Torah”, something you consider yourself more qualified to judge than any of the above Rabbonim.
anon, that is circular reasoning. You are telling me that it is only Agadata because it is Agadata.
Speaking of dying on crosses, that happened mostly to people who followed their nationalistic urges, against the advice of our Chachamim. So, if the Romans punishing people are your yardstick, there you have one.
thank you for a well written summary response. to add, there are zero poskim who dismiss the shevios. even the disgraceful distortion of Torah sources that this other religion leverage to support their fake moshiach, such as the tshiva of the holy Avnei Nezer, nor a fraudulent letter from the Or Someyach, never entertain the absurd claim that we Jews are not obligated to keep the shevios. The Avnei Nezer concludes his long tshiva that Jews are not obligated to go Eretz Yisroel because of (amongst other reasons) the shevios. The fraudulent Or Someyach letter claims a situation in the 1920s that “removed the fear of the oaths”, claiming an exception to the otherwise binding reality of the shevios. I can only presume that the evil Mizrachi authors of that fraud knew that even the amharutzim they were trying to trick wouldn’t fall for the absurd “new scripture” that @anon1m0us is preaching.
Yaakov Yosef, nevertheless it is appropriate to refer to Rav Goren as Rav Goren. You can bear in mind all of the issues, but since he was, after all, a renowned scholar it is fitting to refer to him as such. It’s not like he was פורק עול ח”ו. It’s just a good habit, and you’d appreciate others doing the same to rabbis whom you venerate that they strongly disagree with.
If a Gemara tells you what you must or must not do, that is by definition an Halachah. It is not a story or a depiction, or even a theoretical punishment. Especially when the Gemara is discussing in detail how we derive all of it. And that’s after a description of Amoraim who acted upon these ideas. And, as I pointed out, the Rambam took it seriously enough to refer to the Gemara’s interpretation as Shlomo Hamelech’s plain intention of the verse.
The fact that the Magen Avrohom added certain Halachos after הלכות קריאת התורה since they were missing from the Shulchan Aruch and they were important enough to be made aware of, tells you that the Shulchan Aruch wasnever meant to replace the Torah. It was meant, as the Mechaber wrote, to codify what was written in the Tur/Beis Yosef, which was the daily practice—as the Tur describes in his introduction.
Nor does the Tur/Shulchan Aruch explain the importance of leaving Yeshiva to join the army so that you can take part of potential battles.
HaLeiVi – I do refer to almost all other RZ Rabbonim at least as ‘Rav’, but that one was seriously beyond the pale. But you do have a valid point.
HaLeiVi – Your last post hit the nail on the head 100% It is impossible to simply ignore a Gemara. A fact that didn’t escape the vast majority of Rabbonim on both sides of the debate on Zionism.
somejew – I deliberately didn’t go into the details, because whoever wants to debate will do so anyway. But even the RZ Rabbonim (at least the earlier ones) understood that they had to deal with this issue. Another very common mistake that you alluded to is people thinking that the Shevuah of the Yidden is conditioned on the Goyim keeping their Shevuah, which it isn’t. Among other reasons, because we didn’t swear to THEM, but to the Ribbono Shel Olam. The British also had no right to speak on behalf of the Arabs, something the Arabs still resent down to today. So the Balfour Declaration wasn’t מתיר anything. At any rate, even those who kvetched sevaras or maybe even forged letters, all held that they HAD to say SOMETHING about the Oaths. So they were in a better matzav than many ostensibly ‘Chareidi’ Yidden today.
… Aside from the Divrei Yoel, many other Poskim held the Oaths to be very serious and very real, including Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Chaim Brisker and his son Rav Velvel, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Eliyahu Henkin …
—
you mention the chafets chayim and rav grozovsky
could you point to a specific place ?
.
.the shavu’oth are different to hilchot lashon hara which are mentioned in yad hachazaka as opposed to the shavu’ot
the omission of the shavu’oth from sifrei halacha is brought as a factor by an authority no less than the gaon the avnei nezer [YD 454:48-51]
he explains that the shavu’ot are ‘not lehalacha’ [his language] and
that explains the widespread omission from the accepted codifiers [again his language]
whereas there is no mention whatsoever anywhere in any posek re lashon harah being omitted …
and the issur of lashon harah ‘not being lehalacha’
.
.YYA
Among other reasons, because we didn’t swear to THEM, but to the Ribbono Shel Olam.
—
when and where did we swear to the RBSH’O ?
.
.YYA
The British also had no right to speak on behalf of the Arabs, something the Arabs still resent down to today ..
—
And the arabs do have a right to speak ‘on behalf of’ the arabs ?
what exactly are the criteria for the right to speak ‘on behalf’ ?
would ottoman turkey satisfy the criteria for speaking ‘on behalf’ ?
would the roman empire satisfy the criteria of haskama shel ha’umot ?
positing that haskamat ha’umot is a matir [as per your reasoning]
is kibush milhamah a kinyan al pi torah ?
cf avnei nezer where he posits that pre revolutionary russia is the private domain of the tsar al pi torah
so why is palestine not the possession of the british empire, al pi torah ?
.
.
rav zevin is on record saying that the 1947 un vote constitutes haskamat ha umotwas it ‘theirs’ to be maskim ?
maybe . it was a mandate , after all .
not clear …
.
.@AAQ
….There are lots of cases where rabbinical opinions show up late: turns out R Landau is against demonstrations …
[aaq]
—————–
that serves as another reminder of aaq’s ignorance of basic facts in EY
most mainstream rabbanim were against demo’s
this is not news at all
starting from rav shach
rav steinman
rav elyashiv
and most hasidic rebeim
.
.
your post re gorens proper appellation is incomprehensible to me
the most chashuv rabbanim sign publicly that his proper appellation is without the title rav
and haleivi bichvodo uveatsmo disagrees ….
haleivi deems himself as more qualified than them to decide who is or isn’t worthy of the title rav ???
.
.Yaakov Yosef: R’ Shlomo Kluger disagreed with what you’re saying. He said that since the other nations oppressed the Jews, the Oaths on the Jews are no longer binding.
R’ Meir Simcha also disagreed with you, and held that the Balfour Declaration did allow the Jews to create a country.HaLevi
If you want to bring analogies from the Romans, keep in mind, the man’s original followers were yeshiva Bochorim who thought they were following a Rav! A Rav that spoke well. A Rav that quoted things and made people feel happy. The nationalistic Jews, they followed Rabbi Akiva and Bar Kochba. Are you saying Rabbi Akiva violated the oaths? He knows less than the Satmar Rebbe?
The rambam clearly states „והכת הראשונה תפרש הדברים כפשוטן, ותאמין שהדברים כמשמען, ולא יעלה על דעתם דבר זולתו… ולפי דעתי אין מין טפשות למטה מטפשות הכת הזאת.“
What I find fascinating about this l, is how you are easy to accept a gemara as Halacha, but something clearly stating in Halacha, you make all the excuses why it should not apply.
Again, I will put this in a simple sentence that any am haaretz to understand. The 3 oaths are NOT halacha. You can learn whatever you want from it, but no one needs to follow it. If it was a halacha, the Halachic Gedolim would have included it. They did not. I challenge ANYONE to show me a Halachic source in The Shulchan Oruch, Rambam, Rif, that quotes the 3 oaths.
But, I CAN show you the halachic source for Yishuv Eretz Yisroel.
Yankel Berel, you say “…decide who is or isn’t worthy of the title rav”. But that’s the point. Don’t decide who is or isn’t. Just refer to them normally without deciding whether or not there are issues with them.
Yankel Berel: you mention the chafets chayim and rav grozovsky
could you point to a specific place ?
Rav Reuven wrote an entire Kuntres called בעיות הזמן which I was actually quite shocked by, because his שיטות on Zionism are closer to Satmar than anything people usually associate with the “Yeshiva World” and a member of the Moetzes. The Sefer is available for download at HebrewBooks. The Chofetz Chaim is quoted by Rav Elchonon in Kovetz Maamarim, especially the newer two volume edition that includes letters and other additional material.
Anon, I think you are crossing into open dishonesty. Ypu are quoting a Rambam about strange statements in Chazal as a marker for what he would have held about normal Sugyos that you decided to classify as Agada.
It so happens that the Rambam in his Sefarim take Agada and Medrash very plainly and usually literally. The Moreh Nevuchim, for example, quotes Midrashim quite often and almost always for their plain and straightforward meaning.
This is especially true for this very topic, where I have shown you that he quotes it as the actual intention of the Pasuk.
And again, it is not a Mitzvah all its own. But it is mentioned by Shlomo Hamelech, and understood by Chazal as a warning.
Yankel Berel:
I never said that it was a given that הסכמת האומות would be מתיר anything, something the Maharal says explicitly that it doesn’t, however even לשיטתם of those who might say it does, it isn’t pashut at all who would need to be מסכים.
DaMoshe:
The letter of the Ohr Somayach is most probably a forgery ואכמ״ל. Even if it wasn’t, the legal status of the British Mandate wasn’t technically כיבוש in the normal sense. It came with an expiration date (May ’48) and a requirement to grant independence to the local population. There was also a lot of arm-twisting and actual terrorism being perpetrated against the British between the Balfour Declaration and ’48 by groups like Etzel and Lechi and sometimes also the Hagana. If persecution would be a reason to be מתיר the שבועות, so why wasn’t that triggered already at the time of the Churban itself with all the accompanying Roman brutality? It wasn’t, because Chazal say that Bar Koziva was punished for violating the Oaths 65 years AFTER the Churban.
@DaMoshe
what is the reference for “R’ Shlomo Kluger” about the shevios you mention? I would like to look it upyankel> shavu’oth are different to hilchot lashon hara
you are right regarding having a solid source, but YY has also a point: there are issues that raise and fall with generations. There were periods when AZ was a burning issue, but we are not learning many of those halochos as daily necessity (while they are still on the books). So, Ch Ch felt that LH became a more serious issue than before (not just social issues but also technical – appearance of first media, maybe – newspapers and then telegraph?). So, a general prescription (agaddah) early on was sufficient to keep the village whisperers at bay, but more complex society required more halachik guidelines.
@HaLeci,
I think you are being dishonest with yourself. You are picking and choosing medrishim to whatever .let’s your needs. I clearly showed you what his thoughts.
And again, show me in ANY halacha sefer the 3 oaths.
Finally even bringing in Shlomo Hamelechbis absurd. It is the wrong time period!
YYA, I have to agree with your refutation of my occam razor (so it was too sharp for me) – there are more of those who condemned R Goren than those who simply disagreed with other non-charedim. some things/decisions that I heard of do raise questions .. at the same time, I heard from talmidei chachomim who considered him same … and these are T’Ch who are capable of calling out someone who is not. Would it be fair to summarize that he took upon controversial topics and might have ended up wrong. I don’t think this is such a bad thing. If a person has kelim and tries to reach emes and is not afraid to put his opinions out, then he might get something wrong, it is still better than those who do not have skills or integrity or bravery.
yankel> most mainstream rabbanim were against demo’s … this is not news at all
then, please continue posting these opinions and ask charedi publications to post them, and then maybe do something to enforce these opinions.
Demand your politicians speak about this problem in Knesset.
Have demonstrations against demonstrations.
Otherwise, everyone else assumes that the mainstream supports them.Why is community so shy of opposing their own mistreats?
YYA> Chofetz Chaim is quoted by Rav Elchonon in Kovetz Maamarim
could you expand on that? Are these direct quotes? while Chofetz Chaim was still alive? I think most of it is after … Unless there are similar direct quotes from Chofetz Chaim, I would call this source R Elchonon, not Chofetz Chaim …
SJIK: I believe it’s in Maasei Yedei Yotzer.
YYA: any proof that the letter was forged? Or just the claim of anti-Zionists like SR who claim it to back themselves up?Yaakov Yosef, you say “I never said that it was a given that הסכמת האומות would be מתיר anything, something the Maharal says explicitly that it doesn’t“.
I think this is a misunderstood Maharal. First of all, he doesn’t mention the nations “allowing” us to return. What he says is that even if it gets so hard that they are murdering (some of) us, we should still not try to break out of Galus.
But this is in a wider context of how he describes these three oaths. He describes them as the three forces at play keeping the unnatural state of Galus possible. Two of them keep us from leaving it, the way some other nationalities have sought independence, and the third keeps the nations from going too hard—in Galus terms, which means rounding up every Jew. Up until the Germans nobody did that, not even the harsh and cruel Romans.
He seems to be saying that it can’t happen, since you can’t go against these forces and it doesn’t pay to try.
Personally, I don’t think that the two oaths that pertain to us were violated in the end, even if the initial plan was to immigrate en masse. And fighting local enemies or even declaring an independent state is a far cry from the idea of revolting against our host nations to break out of a Galus. And with the above Maharal in mind, it couldn’t have been broken even if we’ve tried.
As for the Germans violating the oath on the nations, they did not fully succeed in their plans and they lost terribly. And also, perhaps that is what caused, in Heaven, a motion to create a Jewish national state, just like it triggered that reaction in this world. (If you don’t like to think of the state of Israel as a positive thing, then this won’t work for you.)
We are still in Galus, and state of Israel itself is in Galus, but of the same type that we had from Herod’s time onward.
May we all be Zoche to greet Moshiach in the very near future, while not having to be ashamed to meet eyes.
“וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּ֥ם אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וִֽישַׁבְתֶּם־בָּ֑הּ כִּ֥י לָכֶ֛ם נָתַ֥תִּי אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ לָרֶ֥שֶׁת אֹתָֽהּ׃
And you shall take possession of the land and settle in it, for I have assigned the land to you to possess.
” (BaMidbar 33:53)BaMidbar 33:53 is a Torah mitzvah that applies today and at all times.
Claims about the halachic validity of the “three oaths” are Satmar/N.K. straw men and propaganda techniques designed to divert attention from real halachic issues:
1. The “three oaths” cannot be “halacha” if they are used to nullify a Torah mitzvah of taking possession of the land (BaMidbar 33:53).
2. The “three oaths” cannot be “halacha” if they violate the real halacha in Shulchan Aruch, IE Even HaEzer 75 that allows any Jew to make aliyah and to force their spouse to make aliyah.
3. The “three oaths” state nothing about prohibiting creation of a Jewish state before the Moshiach.
4. The “three oaths” were never violated by the Jews as the UN General Assembly in 1947 voted by a majority vote to allow creation of a Jewish state.
5. President Trump, the most powerful non-Jew in the world, placed the US Embassy in Jerusalem, thus formally recognizing the legality of the Jewish state and its capital.Who is actually violating the “three oaths”? Satmar and Neturei Karta!
RightJew, I guess you’d side with Yosheyahu over Yirmiyahu.
#1 is you vs. the Gemara. Cool ― if you’re a Karaite.
#2 missing the point by a lightyear. The oaths have nothing to do with living in Eretz Yisroel.
#3 is technically true.
#4 is perhaps true.
#5 pointless.Your postscript shows that you are not arguing in good faith.
AAQ Re. Rabbi Goren:
AAQ: I heard from talmidei chachomim who considered him same … and these are T’Ch who are capable of calling out someone who is not.
YYA: There is no question that he was a Talmid Chacham. That is why he can’t claim ignorance or simply blundering… There is also something called Yiras Shomayim. There is also another thing called השוחד יעוור עיני חכמים. As in people the Chumash (i.e. Hashem Himself) calls חכמים…
AAQ: Would it be fair to summarize that he took upon controversial topics and might have ended up wrong. If a person has kelim and tries to reach emes and is not afraid to put his opinions out, then he might get something wrong… etc.
YYA: I think the catch is the “tries to reach emes” part… The פרשת האח והאחות as it was called was Halachically the exact polar opposite of the Mary Ben Gurion episode. Not something a Talmid Chochom even of lesser stature could have missed…
anon1, Not sure why you are bestowing the title of ‘picking and choosing’ unto me, but I do see how you are picking and choosing which points to ignore.
As for not being brought by other Sefarim, as I wrote earlier, they were never meant to replace the need to learn Gemara for general direction in all things. Others have already responded that this is no different than Lashon Hara. And, as I worte earlier, it’s no different than all of those Halachos that the Magen Avrohom brought in the end of Hilchos Krias Hatorah. I also mentioned, to address this point, that it doesn’t make sense to have “Hilchos Shalosh Shvuos” since it is not a Mitzva all its own. It is gleaned from a Pasuk in Kesuvim, which can not create a new Mitzvah, but it can surely advise and admonish. Yirmeya Hanavi also admonished us to seek the welfare of the host country. That is not either a Mitzva all its own, and although it found its way into Pirkei Avos it is not either a Halacha in Shulcha Aruch ― as far as I can recall.
And again, I will rely on our sages to know when a verse, whatever time-period it was said in, applies to us or not. Shlomo Hamelech was not in the time of the second Galus but nor was he in the time of the second.
YYA
as far as I remember avnei nezer in end of yoreh deah quotes rashi as saying that haskamat ha umot is matir the shavu’ot
and when quoting r yenotan aibshits to the opposite , he writes ‘yibatel [r’y] va’elef kayotse bo , ve’al yibatel ot achat midivrei rashi’
quite strong language ….
.
.Rabbi Lazer Brody [a Chareidi Rosh HaYeshivah] taught:
“…HaShem should protect the soldiers and the police…
we have to express our thanks to every Israeli soldier and police-man…”SOURCE: lecture titled: “The Protective Force”
by Rabbi Lazer Brody, 2015/10/25, this lecture was found on YoutubeSQUARE_ROOT, Hashem should protect them all. We owe thanks to every soldier but not sure about every policeman.
yankel berel, thanks for the Mareh Makom. He does say that if there is permission then according to Rashi there is no issue of עולה בחומה, since he understands Rashi’s “ביד חזקה” to mean going against the nations. He does not mention Reb Yonason.
Yankel Berel Re. Avnei Nezer:
Nu, so at most we have another sharp מחלוקת הפוסקים. The case against Zionism doesn’t stand or fall on this alone. All the Gedolim who discussed this sugya were aware of the sources the Avnei Nezer brings, and most saw the Avnei Nezer itself.
SQUARE_ROOT:
1. WADR, Rabbi Lazer Brody isn’t exactly “a Chareidi Rosh Yeshivah”…
2. Nothing in his quoted statement is a סתירה to any of the reasons not to join the IDF.
YYA
excellent
that was my point from the beginning
the approach of satmar to the shavu’ot is a machloket haposkim
thanks for agreeing
I never asked nor claimed that avnei nezer is the only approach
.
.I fully agree : there are many other valid reasons to counter zionism
but the shavu’ot are being – in my opinion – misused and misrepresented
and that is, besides simply megaleh panim batorah shelo kehalacha,
also dangerous and leads to pikuach nefesh
.
.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.